TRANSLATION, ADAPTATION, VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY OF …

Elektronik Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi® www.esosder.org

Electronic Journal of Social Sciences® ISSN:1304-0278

Ekim/October(2020) - Cilt/Volume:19 - Sayı/Issue:76 (1810-1848)

Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi – Geliş Tarihi: 29/03/2020 – Kabul Tarihi: 03/11/2020

DOI:10.17755/esosder.710803

Atıf için: Elektronik Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 2020; 19(76) 1810-1848

TRANSLATION, ADAPTATION, VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY OF

THE SENSE-MAKING SCALE: A CROSS-CULTURAL EVIDENCE

FROM INDIA, MALAYSIA, ROMANIA AND TURKEY1

ANLAMLANDIRMA ÖLÇEĞİNİN ÇEVİRİSİ, UYARLAMASI, GEÇERLİLİK VE

GÜVENİLİRLİĞİ: HİNDİSTAN, MALEZYA, ROMANYA VE TÜRKİYE'DEN

KÜLTÜRLERARASI BİR KANIT

Türker TUĞSAL2

Abstract

The main object of this research is translation, adaptation, validity and reliability of the Sense-Making Scale’s

Turkish version to English so as to be used in cross-cultural researches. Even though there are extensive studies

which have been carried out on sense-making, any sense-making scale or questionnaire in the existing literature

is not consistent and there is a gap that should be filled. The contribution of this research is to redound a sense-

making measurement tool in English. Firstly, the related literature is reiterated and a pilot study of translated

scale is applied for validity and reliablity. After reliability is assured, the surveys are sent to 600 academicians in

India, Malaysia, Romania and Turkey and 466 of the data are valid. The data fit to normal distribution.

Cronbach's Alpha value is found reliable (0.763) and the variability of the scale is 61.257%. The first possible

explanation for these results is being the first measurement tool about sense-making in English. The second

implication of the study is; sense-making of signs such as action, discourse, diagnosis, facts orelse events may let

people prevent from adverse, negative and unfavourable incidents such as accidents, chaoses or crises which

may occur in times to come.

Keywords: Sense-Making Scale, Scale Translation and Adaptation, Cross-Cultural Evidence, India, Malaysia,

Romania and Turkey.

Öz

Bu araştırmanın temel amacı, Anlamlandırma Ölçeğinin Türkçe versiyonunun kültürlerarası araştırmalarda

kullanılmak üzere geçerliliği, güvenirliği sağlanarak İngilizce versiyona uyarlanabilmesidir. Anlamlandırma

üzerine yapılmış kapsamlı çalışmalar olmasına rağmen, İngilizce literatürde herhangi bir anlamlandırma ölçeği

veya anketi bulunmamaktadır ve literatürde doldurulması gereken bir boşluk bulunmaktadır. Bu araştırmanın

literatüre katkısı, İngilizce anlamlandırma ölçeği sunmaktır. İlk olarak, geçerlik ve güvenilirlik için çevirisi

yapılan ölçeğin 66 akademisyenden oluşan katılımcıyla pilot çalışması uygulanmıştır. Geçerlik ve güvenilirlik

sağlandıktan sonra Hindistan, Malezya, Romanya ve Türkiye'deki 600 akademisyene çevrimiçi anket e-posta ile

gönderilmiştir ve 466 geçerli veri elde edilmiştir. Veriler normal dağılıma uymaktadır. Cronbach Alfa değeri

güvenilir bulunmuştur (0.763) ve ölçeğin değişkenliği %61.257'dir. Bu sonuçlara göre; İngilizce olarak

kullanılabilecek anlamlandırma ile ilgili ilk ölçüm aracı sağlanmaktadır. Çalışmanın ikinci önemi; eylem,

söylem, tanı, gerçekler ya da diğer olaylar gibi işaretlerin anlamlandırılması; insanların gelecek zamanlarda

meydana gelebilecek kaza, kaos ya da kriz gibi olumsuz ve istenmeyen olayları önlemesine izin verebilir.

Anahtar Kelimeler: Anlamlandırma Ölçeği Uyarlaması, Hindistan, Malezya, Romanya ve Türkiye.

1 The survey permission was evaluated by the Publication Ethics Committee for the Social and Human Sciences

of Beykent University and approved on 10/02/2019. 2 Assist. Prof. Dr., Beykent University, Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, t.turker@gmail,

Orcid: https://orcid.org/ 0000-0002-7585-4989.

mailto:t.turker@gmail

Ekim/October(2020) – Cilt/Volume:19 – Sayı/Issue:76 (1810-1848)

1828 1828 1828

1. Introduction

Sense-making concept and the related studies are generally searched in organizational

behavior field related with organizational communication and crisis communication. It is seen

that various organizational issues related to the concept of sense-making are examined. In the

current literature, including in different disciplines; integration of cultural sense-making

(Dyer, 2017), the process of sense-making for adaptation of organizational settings (Ito and

Inohara, 2015), sense-making in international affairs (Jakobsen, Worm & Li, 2018), sense-

making in developing markets (Kharchenkova, 2018), cognition, action and outputs

(Mattsson, Corsaro & Ramos, 2015), strategic management accounting and sense-making

(Tillmann & Goddard, 2008), financial crises and sense-making (Tuğsal, 2015), sense-making

in business life (Tuğsal, 2016), crisis communication and sense-making (Xu, 2018). On the

contrary, although there is a lot of research about sense-making in the existing literature; there

is not any sense-making scale in English in social sciences and there is a significant gap to be

filled. In this context, the attempt of this research is translation and adaptation of Turkish

version of the Sense-Making Scale.

In the existing literature there is a lot of research about sense-making. One exception

is the study of Pakenham (2007) in medical science related to making sense of MS (Multiple

Sclerosis) which is applied to determine the links of sense-making and adjustment outcomes.

However it isn’t related with organizational behavior and the sample consists of MS people. It

is seen that there has been only one sense-making scale in Turkish that has been developed

(Tuğsal, 2019). The lack of a validated and reliable sense-making measurement tool in

English that can be used in different cultures, besides the necessity of cross-cultural

translation and adaptation makes this research significant.

The term “scale” is defined by DeVellis (2012) to refer measuring instruments

consisting of expressions aiming to measure the levels of cases with theoretical presence but

not directly observed. Scales can be developed in two ways. The first way is to prepare a scale

for self-culture. The second way is to adapt a measurement instrument developed in a foreign

culture to native culture. One of the most important reasons for the need to conduct an

international comparative scale development attempt is to consider what it means to

prevailingly manage institutions in different cultures. Due to the fact that there have been

cultural differences; translation of a scale from a foreign language may cause many possible

faults related to reliability and validity of scale adaptation.

In the literature, it is seen that scales are generally brought to cultures as a result of

adaptation. In this context, the main goal of this study and its contribution to the literature is

to adapt Tuğsal’s (2019) Sense-Making Scale. However, there is a specific methodology for

scale development. Scale development studies are usually carried out by experimental or

theoretical processes. Yurdugül (2005) describes the stages of the experimental process

commonly used in scale development studies; determination of the property to be measured,

obtaining candidate scale, determination of literature and scale items, experimenting with

appropriate sample and obtaining experimental form as a result of factor analysis.

The main purpose of scale adaptation is to create a viable type of the data which have

been equivalent to the original version of the measurement instrument in different cultures. It

is commonly been assumed that (Beaton, Bombardier, Guillemin & Ferraz, 2000; Epstein et

al. 2015:360-369; Guillemin, Bombardier & Beaton, 1993) the back translation is the

technique which is produced from the target language to original language. According to

recent researches (Caminiti et al., 2010; Gonc¸alves et al., 2010) although the back translation

process is time-consuming and expensive, it is mostly considered that it gives a satisfactory

result and the best practice.


1829 1829 1829

The S-MS was developed to measure the sense-making. It consists of 22 items in five

components. Two independent professional committees were comprised of two billingual

translators and one expert in organizational behavior theory and methodology. All

professionals were able to recommend changes freely if they thought improvements in

translation quality. Two translators and committee members were informed in advance about

the instructions.

The generalizability of the findings in this research are potentially limited by

generating a single translation method. To overcome this limitation, different translation

techniques may have been applied, besides the number of committee members may have been

increased; but these additions would have been consuming more time, cost and resource.

Backward translation was used as the source to confirm which technique (forward, committee

or both of them) was better for the translation (Epstein et al., 2015).

2. Theoretical Background of Sense-Making Concept and Review of the

Literature

Meaning can be defined as the understanding from a word, a behavior or a fact

(www.tdk.gov.tr). In order to make sense in relation to the concept of meaning; cases, signs,

expressions or behaviors are needed. In this context, sense-making can be defined as the

process of perceiving, understanding, analyzing, interpreting and making sense of words,

behaviors, signs, symbols, diagnoses, expressions, observations or symptoms.

Maitlis & Christianson (2014) hold the view that sense-making is the process of

interpreting clues. According to Gross (2010), sense-making is expressed as situational

awareness as a result of impressions entering the mind from the external environment.

Dougherty & Drumheller (2006) argue that if there is a shock to the system or a deterioration

in the system, it will be meaningful. Emotions that allow individuals to make sense provide

this deterioration, but individuals tend to catch clues with emotional coincidences that focus

on rational business practices.

The Sense-Making Theory is referred to Karl Weick; however, it is still an area of

development in the literature. In the 1970s and 1980s, sense-making was first developed as an

approach to information needs and communicative research. The Sense-Making Theory

remains a topic of interest to researchers and theorists, and different approaches to theory are

proposed. One of the most important of these is Karl Weick's Cognitive Psychology Model.

Weick (1988) states that enacting involves both a process, a product and an environment. The

enacted environment defines residues from the change generated by the enacting. The product

of the enacting is expressed as a regular, material and social structure that causes comments.

The second important approach is Louis' Organizational Entry Model. Louis, on the

other hand, evaluated the meaning from a micro-cognitive perspective and defines the three

sense-making processes as perception, diagnosis and interpretation. The first process is the

conceptualization of perception signs. Signs types are listed as changes, contradictions and

surprises. Change is defined as objective differences between the old situation and the new

one. On the contrary, contrasts are defined as subjective differences between the old situation

and the new one. Contrasts are not known in advance. The surprises are defined as the

differences between the individual's expectations and the actual situation. The main

contribution of Louis' model is that surprises trigger the process of sense-making (Smerek,

2009).

When changes, contradictions and surprises are examined as a process of identification

and interpretation; these cognitive events are defined as meaning. According to a definition

provided by Smerek (2009) meaning is the development of an explanation of the questions


1830 1830 1830

that individuals cause and what they mean. There are various inputs that shape these

explanations and meanings based on change, contrasts and surprises. These entries are; past

experiences, personal predispositions, local comments and orders, information and comments

from other individuals. According to the existing literature, the researches on Sense-Making

Theory are introduced in Table 1.

Table 1: Existing Researches on Sense-Making Theory

Researchers Object of the

research

Method/

Approach Findings and Results

Foldy,

Goldman &

Ospina (2008)

Conscious change in

organizations

Induction and

deduction

A theoretical and methodological approach to

meaningful activity directed by individuals and

groups was conducted.

Hermann &

Dayton

(2008)

Politicians’ sense-

making styles in 77

crisis events

Observation and

literature review

It was concluded that the structure of the

decision unit, the best action plan and the

perceptions and thoughts about who would do

this would change in the strategies that take time

to react.

Tillmann &

Goddard (2008)

Sense-making in

strategy formation

and the results on

management

accountants

Observation and

literature review

According to the findings the ultimate goal of

decision-makers in terms of strategy formulation

was meaningful communication.

Henneberg,

Naude &

Mouzas (2010)

In the field of

cognitive and

meaningfulness in

business networks,

eight of the existing

researches in the

literature have been

used as experimental

studies.

Literature review

It was stated that the meaning skills of the

individual are based on role, learning capacity

and cognitive structure. It is stated that there is

no linear relationship between the size and level

of business network in organizations.

Weinberg,

Wiesnar &

Fukawa-

Connelly

(2014)

To define the various

ways in which

students sense-make

in mathematics.

Interview

Regarding to the results it has been observed that

interpretation affects the note-taking practices of

students who deal with content-oriented

interpretation, communication-oriented

interpretation and placement-oriented

interpretation.

Carr, Gilbride

& James (2016)

Sense-making

capabilities

Critical incident

technique

The analysis of sense-making capabilities

indicate differences in sensitivity and

interpretation.

Hahn et al.

(2017)

Student sense-

making on physics

homework

Descriptive and

frequency analysis

Researchers state that the most common sense-

making strategy was to check the units or

dimensions of an answer and secondly to

substitute the fundamental dimensions of

quantities.

Hughes et al.

(2017)

Sense-making of

self-harm in young

people

Narrative

interviews

and cross-case

thematic analysis

The process of sense-making was not able to

solve all problems but let participants to navigate

the changes in their worldview.

Schiavio & De

Jaegher

(2017)

Participatory sense-

making in musical

activity

Phenomenological

and enactive

perspective

According to the results enactive-friendly

approaches provide a fertile ground for the study

of cognition.

Stieglitz et al.

(2017)

Sense-making in

social media

Social network

case

analysis and

sentiment analysis

Findings show that there are differences in the

communication structure of extreme events.


1831 1831 1831

Abbas et al.

(2018)

Sense-making in

social media

Text analytics and

coherence analysis

The results indicate significant implications for

sense-making.

Cerulo (2018)

Sense-making scents

and meaning

attribution

Focus group

The author explores sense-making and meaning

attribution and emphasizes that sense-making

varies by culture.

Cantarero et al.

(2019)

Necessity for sense-

making

Correlation

analysis

Findings demonstrate that need for sense-making

has positive correlation with personality traits

and people's identity.

Cooper,

Ezzamel &

Robson (2019)

Multiple

performance

measurement

systems and sense-

making

Qualitative and

interpretive

analysis

Results emphasize that social skills in sense-

making allows continuity and absence of conflict

in organizations.

Haverly et al.

(2020)

Investigating sense-

making moments

Qualitative case

study

Results suggest that novices may benefit from

students' sense-making.

Henneberg,

Naude &

Mouzas (2010)

In the field of

cognitive and

meaningfulness in

business networks,

eight of the existing

researches in the

literature have been

used as experimental

studies.

Literature review

It was stated that the meaning skills of the

individual are based on role, learning capacity

and cognitive structure. It is stated that there is

no linear relationship between the size and level

of business network in organizations.

2.1. Methodological Issues in Translation and Adaptation Process

Adapting a scale from another culture may be a problem because a concept or

expression may have an obvious meaning in a different cultural climate, even no meaning at

all.

A significant distinction has to be made between translation, adaptation and cross-

cultural verification. Translation can be defined as the process of producing a document from

a target language source. Adaptation, on the other hand, can be explained as the determination

of the differences between source and target culture to maintain meaning equivalence. By

doing cross-cultural verification, it aims to ensure that the new survey functions as intended

and has the same features and functions as the original scale (Mokkink et al., 2010:737-745).

The translation, adaptation and validation of measurement tools or scales can take a lot

of time for cross-cultural research. Therefore, cautious planning and particular

methodological techniques are required to obtain a reliable and valid measurement tool.

Intercultural and multinational researches are needed due to the increase in various

populations worldwide. It has commonly been pointed out (Beaton, Bombardier, Guillemin &

Ferraz, 2000; Beaton, Bombardier, Guillemin & Ferraz, 2002; Sousa, Zauszniewski, Mendes

& Zanetti, 2005) that researchers should have access to cross-validated, reliable and valid

tools or measures across the population or various cultural segments in other languages.

According to Malhotra, Agarwal & Peterson (1996) translating the certain words,

expressions or phrases directly may be inaccurate. Translation errors can be detected in back-

translation. Even if the questionnaire expressions are the same, different scale formats may

not be compared. Therefore, in this research the format of the survey is tried to be kept

homogeneous. In Table 2, theoretical background of methodological issues in cross-cultural

translation and adoptation process of scales and questionnaires is introduced.


1832 1832 1832

Table 2. Theoretical Background of Methodological Issues in Cross-Cultural Translation and

Adoptation Process of Scales and Questionnaires

Researchers Object of the

research

Method/

Approach Findings and Results

Hagell et al.

(2010)

Method of

questionnaire

translation

DP, FB and BW

translation

It was found that there was no obvious difference

between translation types.

Chen & Boore

(2009)

Methodological

review of

translation

Review Researchers recommended that translator's background

is a priority.

Maneesriwongu

l &

Dixon (2004)

Translation

process Review

Regarding to the studies reviewed, there is no

consensus on translation technique.

Sousa &

Rojjanasrirat

(2011)

Translation and

adaptation

process of scales

Review Translation and validation processes require time and

financial issues.

Malhotra,

Agarwal &

Peterson

(1996)

Methodological

issues Review

Establishing the equivalence of questionnaire from

different countries is critical.

Epstein et al.

(2015)

Adaptation of

questionnaire

Experimental

study

Authors recommended that using cross-cultural

methods need in this field.

Yasir Arafat et

al.

(2016)

Adaptation of

instruments

Methodological

review

Regarding to the sampling technique there has been

variation. While adapting scales, cultural and linguistic

issues of translation

have to be considered.

Sekaran (1983) Methodological

issues Review

The researcher stated that there are many comparable

studies in different countries therefore, this situation is

not critical.

Nasif et al.

(1991)

Methodological

problems Review

According to the authors the main methodological

problmes are criterion, simplicity, sampling and

generalizibility.

Epstein, Santo

& Guillemin

(2015)

Adaptation of

questionnaire Review

Adaptation in a different culture may cause a problem

because of meaning differences.

Ortiz-Gutiérrez

& Cruz-Avelar

(2018)

Translation of

adaptation

process

Review There is a need to adapt culturally different scales

before using them.

Hagell et al. (2010) states that DP approach has advantages over FB translation. By

contrast, Perneger, Leplege & Etter (1999) and da Mota Falcao, Ciconelli & Ferraz (2003)

claim that one translation method does not have a distinct psychometric advantage over

another. Acquadro et al. (2008) states that one of the most preferred methods for translation is

backward and forward translation. Likewise, Bonomi et al. (1996); Beaton et al. (2000);

Maneesriwongul & Dixon (2004) and Wild et al. (2005) propose the FB translation method.

Therefore, in this research Tuğsal’s (2019) the original Turkish version of the Sense-Making

Scale (S-MS) was adapted to English using the forward-backward (FB) translation approach.

Since it is necessary to study in countries that are culturally different from populations; in

order to use measurement and evaluation tools in new contexts, there is a need to adapt the

Sense-Making Scale (S-MS) to English.

Ortiz-Gutiérrez and Cruz-Avelar (2018: 202-206) claim that the translator should be

the native speaker of the source language and should have sufficient knowledge of the the

new version of the target language. Therefore, Keiichiro (2001) & Wu (2006) state that


1833 1833 1833

translator plays an important role in investigating the potential of translating the second

language as close as possible to the original language through translation.

The difficulty is that the translation depends on both language and culture.

Researchers aiming to translate as close as possible in structure and form. They translate into

the original language, taking into account the cultural nuances involved in the use of

translation (Cruz et al. 2000). Chen & Boore (2009) also list factors affecting translation

quality as translation, culture and language. Brislin (1970) hold the view that the most

preferred and most recommended approach for translation studies is the translation method.

One major drawback might be to define the equivalence of terminology and

conceptual meaning. Twinn (1998) and Esposito (2001) highlight that these interventions will

be appropriate to ensure the reliability of qualitative study. On the other hand, since the

meanings of component structures can change from one culture to another; Munet-Vilar’o &

Egan (1990) suggest that in the researches in which quantitative methods will be used, these

measures should be translated into the language of culture examined.

Regarding the methods, Maneesriwongul & Dixon (2004) reviewed forty-seven

studies that included the translation of quantitative research tools. 38 of the 47 studies used

forward and reverse translation. However, it has been stressed that there is no standard

manual for instrument translation. The back translation approach also assures to accomplish

conceptual equivalence. As a result, it is seen that there is not one perfect translation

technique in all intercultural studies. Furthermore, consensus among researchers is required

on how to ensure instrument translation in intercultural research.

2.2. Translation and Adaptation Process of the Sense-Making Scale

Translation and adaptation process of the Sense-Making Scale is illustrated in the

Figure 1. The first step states the preliminary draft of the Sense-Making Scale verbatim in

Turkish. After two independent translations to English, conceptual analysis was implemented

by OB theorist, methodologist and bilingual translators. Then, expert committees evaluated

Back Translation 1 and 2. Finally, expert committee of bilingual translators compare the

conceptual results for translation and back translation.


1834 1834 1834

Preliminary draft of the Sense-Making Scale verbatim in Turkish

Independent Translation to English

Independent Translation to English

Conceptual analysis by OB Theorist, methodologist and bilingual translators

Independent Translations 1 + 2

Conceptual analysis by OB Theorist, methodologist and bilingual translators

Back Translation 1

Back Translation 2

Expert Committee for Translation and Back Translation and

Conceptual Comparison by bilingual translators

Figure 1. Translation and Adaptation Process of the Sense-Making Scale

3. Materials and Methodological Approach

The original Turkish version of the Sense-Making Scale (S-MS) (Anlamlandırma

Ölçeği; Turkish version; Tuğsal, 2019) is produced by means of the FB translation approach.

Then the pilot study was implemented with the scale in order to test reliability and structural

validity. After pilot study, the scale was tested with a cross-cultural research so as to

determine evidence whether it has cultural similarities or differences. With this cross-cultural

evidence normality and linearity, reliability analysis, structural validity and factor loadings

are calculated.

3.1. Instrument Translation

The Sense-Making Scale consists of 22 items. 5-point Likert type items have been

used. The official Turkish version of The Sense-Making Scale is translated with FB

translation model. The official Turkish version of the The Sense-Making Scale was translated

into English and were combined into one by the author. Afterwards, it was back-translated

into Turkish by another independent translator. Finally, this version was assessed by expert

committee for translation, back translation and conceptual comparison whether English

version was understood by bilingual translators. Participants found The Sense-Making Scale

easy to understand. Since no changes were reported about The Sense-Making Scale, the final

form was accepted.

Translation Committee Members and Procedures

The billingual assessors had access to both English Sense-Making Scale version as

well as the original Turkish version of The Sense-Making Scale. All the billingual assessors

were instructed to recommend their preference of wording of the statements with regard to

convenience, easiness and uncertainty of the language. In order to perform test-retest analysis,


1835 1835 1835

the pilot study was conducted with 66 participants repeated the questionnaire containing scale

items approximately 1 month apart (30 to 45 days) and the correlation between the two tests

was well (r = 0.91). Quantitative analyses were conducted via online survey with 600

academics from Turkish, Romanian, Indian and Malaysian universities. All participants were

selected randomly and provided online written informed consent. Afterwards, by using this

valid and reliable scale, a cross-cultural research with 466 participants was implemented.

3.2. Measurement and scaling

Regarding equivalence in scales, Malhotra, Agarwal & Peterson (1996) argue that it is

important to determine the equivalence of scales used to acquire data from other cultures.

Measurement tool equivalence is interpreted in the same way across cultures. The

measurement equivalence measures the structure equally in intercultural data. It refers to

translation or linguistic equivalence. In this way, the scales will be easily understood by

researchers from different cultures and will have an equivalent meaning.

Bhalla & Lin (1987) also reported that scalar equivalence examined the same

consistency or structure. Authors state that they examined if the scores received from

participants from other cultures have the same meaning. In this context, this research consists

of different cultures -two countries from Europe (Romania and Turkey) and two countries

from Asia (India and Malaysia) in order to be considered a measure of equivalence.

Paula, Haddad, Weiss, Dini & Ferreira (2014) maintain that cultural adaptation

reduces the cost and time spent on development and allows the previously widely used

instrument to be used for intercultural comparisons. MacCallum, Widaman, Zhang & Hong

(1999) assert that samples in the range of 100–200 are acceptable with well- determined

factors. On the EFA basis of the sample size estimate, it is also suggested that the sample size

should vary between 100 and 250. Some authors use the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) sample

proficiency test to ensure adequate sample size. Different authors (Arafat et al., 2016) receive

different KMO values ranging from 0.50 to 0.60 as the proficiency level. Anthoine, Moret,

Regnault, Sébille & Hardouin (2014), Santos et al. (2015) and Williams, Onsman & Brown

(2010) imply that it is necessary to provide at least 100-250 subjects based on the EFA sample

size estimation recommendations.

Some authors (Arafat, 2016; Leite et al. 2013; Müller, Kohlmann & Wilke, 2015; Ola

& Igbokwe, 2011; Parsian & Dunning, 2009; Riva et al., 2015; Trousselard et al., 2010) as

routine part of EFA for statistical analysis, used the KMO sample adequacy during statistical

analysis. The proficiency was interpreted differently among the authors whose KMO level

was stated as 0.6. Therefore, there have been differences according to the researchers in terms

of sample size estimation, sampling technique and sample size estimation formula.

3.3. Analysis and Findings of the Pilot Study

In order to perform test-retest analysis, 66 participants repeated the questionnaire

containing scale items approximately 1 month apart (30 to 45 days) and the correlation

between the two tests was well (r = 0.91). Afterwards, by using this valid and reliable scale, a

cross-cultural research with 466 participants was implemented. Online survey The Sense-

Making Scale data were analyzed seperately with respect to descriptive statistics. Saris-

Baglama et al. (2004) express that regarding to the data quality missing statement responses

should be <10%. Nunnally & Bernstein (1994) express that regarding to the internal

consistency reliability Cronbach’s alpha should be >0.70. Firstly, reliability analysis of the

scale was made and then factor analysis was performed. As a result of the reliability analysis

of the scale, it is seen that Cronbach's α value is high. Mean, standard deviation and variance

values related to the scale are presented in Table 3.


1836 1836 1836

Table 3. Reliability Statistics of The Sense-Making Scale in Pilot Study

Cronbach's α .767

Standardized Cronbach's α .778

78.950

Variance (σ2) 59.459

SD (σ) 7.711

As introduced in Table 4, the result of Keiser-Meyer-Olkin sampling adequacy (.726)

and Bartlett's sphericity test (Χ2=749,210, which are prerequisites for factor analysis, appear

to be statistically significant (p<0.001). As a result of the explanatory factor analysis of the

Sense-Making Scale, it is observed that there are 4 factors with an Eigen value above 1. First

factor explains sense-making with 16.301% variance, second factor explains with 16.182%,

the third one with 14.262% and fourth factor with 11.564%. Four factors explain sense-

making cumulatively with 58.309% variance.

Table 4. Factor Analysis and Statistical Results Table of the Sense-Making Scale Pilot Study

Factors Factor Loadings

Variance (%) Cumulative Variance (%)

Factor 1 (7 items)

Expression6 ,752

16.301 16.301

Expression9 ,723

Expression1 ,698

Expression3 ,670

Expression11 ,634

Expression20 ,510

Expression2 ,497

Factor 2 (7 items)

Expression4 ,731

16.182 32.482

Expression5 ,713

Expression17 ,650

Expression16 ,609

Expression19 ,533

Expression18 ,518

Expression12 ,473

Factor 3 (3 items)

Expression22 ,856

14.262 46.745 Expression15 ,786

Expression14 ,722

Factor 4 (3 items)

Expression10 ,790

11.564 58.309 Expression7 ,705

Expression8 ,587

Total variance σ2: 58.309

Keiser-Meyer-Olkin: .726

Bartlett χ²: 749.210

p: .000


1837 1837 1837

3.4. Cross-Cultural Research Findings

At this section of the research the universe, sample size and participants, normality, reliability

analysis, structural validity and explanatory analysis are introduced.

3.4.1. The Universe, Sample Size and Participants of Cross-Cultural Research

Due to the fact that cultural norms and values are placed in the aspect that organizations

cultivate; culture is a significant factor in organizations (Lammers & Hickson, 1979; Laurent, 1981).

However, most of the cross-cultural researches are limited and only carried out in small number of

areas. Several cross-cultural studies in the literature are of just two nations. In their pioneering

investigation Nasif, Al-Daeaj, Ebrahimi & Thibodeaux (1991: 79-91) emphasise that sampling topics

reflect a critical problem in intercultural research. The number of countries that are generally involved

in intercultural research is low. Often only two cultures are compared. In 57 studies examined by Nath

(1968), 54 percent were observed to be composed of two country studies. However, this research

consists of four countries namely India, Malaysia, Romania and Turkey. This research would have

been far more useful and persuasive by consisting four cultures.

Academics in the countries India, Malaysia, Romania and Turkey consist of the universe. A

total of 466 out of 600 academics responded to the online survey, of whom 466 (77.66%) consented

and 134 academics chose not to respond. 466 participants 145 of whom are Turkish, 134 of whom are

Indian, 94 of whom are Malaysian, 93 of whom are Romanian. There is not any missing values to

transform. Participant characteristics, frequancy and percentages are introduced in the Table 5.

Regarding to the different money units and purchasing power of countries, monthly total income of

participants was asked in USD so as to make more accurate and meaningful comparison with analysis

of variance for group differences.

Table 5. Descriptive Statistics of the Sample

N=466 f %

Gender Women 231 49.6

Men 235 50.4

Age

18-29 30 6.4

30-39 224 48.1

40-49 111 23.8

50 and above 101 21.7

Country

Turkey 145 31.1

Romania 93 20.0

India 134 28.8

Malaysia 94 20.2

Marital Status Single 124 26.6

Married 342 73.4

Monthly Total Income

0-400USD 122 26.2

401-1,000USD 286 61.4

1,001-2,000USD 29 6.2

2,001-3,000USD 16 3.4

3,001-4,000USD 13 2.8

Work Experience

0-2 67 14.4

3-6 106 22.7

7-10 79 17.0

11-15 214 45.9


1838 1838 1838

Normal distributions among single variables are examined according to kurtosis and

skewness values. While Örün, Orhan, Dönmez & Kurt (2015) advocate that kurtosis and

skewness should be amongst -1 and +1; Emhan, Mete & Emhan (2012:77) and Karagöz

(2016) state that the kurtosis and skewness amongst -2 and +2 are accepted as the criterion for

compliance with normal distribution. In this research skewness and kurtosis variables differ

between -1 and +1. Therefore, the data can be accepted appropriate for normal distribution.

Table 6. Skewness and Kurtosis Statistics for Normal Distribution Variable Skewness Kurtosis

Expression1 -.950 .883

Expression2 -.592 -.314




Expression6 .610 .946




Expression10 -.194 -.068













3.4.2. Reliability Analysis

It is seen that the identical measurement tools may have different reliability scores in

different cultures. A practical approach is proposed by Parameswaran & Yaprak (1987) to

compare the reliability of cross-cultural measurements. So as to analyze the data obtained

from the questionnaires during the scale development stage SPSS 20.0 statistical software is

used. Firstly, the data are prepared for analysis, the missing data are checked and the reverse

materials are coded. Then, the reliability analysis and the construct validity of the scale are

tested.

Table 7. Reliability Statistics of The Sense-Making Scale in Cross-Cultural Study

Cronbach's α .763

Standardized Cronbach's α .794

78.978

Variance (σ2) 57.156

SD (σ) 7.5602

The Cronbach's α value, which is calculated as 0.763 in the scale consisting of 22

items, shows that the scale has acceptable reliability. The arithmetic mean of the scale is

78.978; variance is calculated 57.156; the standard deviation was calculated as 7.5602.

3.4.3. Structural Validity and Explanatory Factor Analysis

Fidell & Tabachnick (2014: 660-662) emphasize that there are two main types of

factor analysis one of them is exploratory and the second one is confirmatory factor analysis.

Exploratory factor analysis may describe and summarize data by classifying variables. Since a


1839 1839 1839

tool is provided for grouping variables, exploratory factor analysis is generally performed at

the initial phases of researches. By contrast with, confirmatory factor analysis is a much more

complicated approach used in the advanced phases of the research which is used to test a

theory.

Regarding to the interpretation of factors; as a general rule, only variables with factor

load of 0.32 and above are interpreted. The larger the loading, the more pure measure of the

variable factor. In their comprehensive study of Comrey & Lee (1992), the loadings on 0.71

indicate excellent, 0.63 indicate very good, 0.55 good, 0.45 and 0.32 indicate that the loading

should be interpreted poorly. The choice of cutoff for the loading size to be interpreted is a

subject that depends on the researchers' preference.

Regarding to the factorability of R, numerous pairs may be significant if R is

factorable (Fidell & Tabachnick, 2014: 667). Kaiser’s measure of sampling adequacy is a

ratio. KMO sample adequacy and Barlett Sphericity test are required for the compliance of the

data with the principal components analysis (Tuğsal, 2018). 0.60 and above values are

required for better factor analysis (Fidell & Tabachnick, 2014: 667). In order to make a more

meaningful interpretation of the principal components analysis, multiple rotations are

performed. Eigen values of the expressions are accepted as 1 in the determination of the

components. After the analysis of the principal components, factor loadings are higher than

0.40.

After reliability analysis, explanatory factor analysis is implemented to consider the

construct validity. In the explanatory factor analysis, "Principal Component" is used as the

factor acquisition method and varimax rotation method is preferred. The result of Keiser-

Meyer-Olkin sampling adequacy (0.881) and Bartlett's sphericity test (Χ2=4597.212;

p<0.001), which are prerequisites for factor analysis appear to be statistically significant.

KMO sample adequacy condition and Barlett Sphericity test condition are provided for factor

analysis (p <0.001).

Table 8. Factor Loadings and Total Variance Statistics of the Sense-Making Scale

Factors Factor Loadings

Variance σ2 (%) Cumulative Variance (%)

Factor 1 (6 items)

Expression6 .741

16.142 16.142

Expression1 .712

Expression3 .654

Expression9 .634

Expression11 .624

Expression13 .510

Factor 2 (4 items)

Expression4 .843

13.732 29.874

Expression5 .735

Expression16 .647

Expression17 .595

Factor 3 (5 items)

Expression22 .727

12.092 41.966

Expression15 .542

Expression14 .524

Expression2 .516


1840 1840 1840

Expression12 .408

Factor 4 (4 items)

Expression19 .724

9.874 51.841

Expression21 .627

Expression20 .503

Expression18 .432

Factor 5 (3 items)

Expression8 .771

9.416 61.257 Expression7 .740

Expression10 .561

Total variance σ2: 61.257

Keiser-Meyer-Olkin: .881

Bartlett χ²: 4597.212

p: .000

According to the results of varimax rotation with Kaiser normalization, there is not

any variables which are loaded below 0.40. Statements 1, 3, 6, 9, 11 and 13 are loaded on the

first factor. The statements 4, 5, 16 and 17 are loaded on the second factor. The statements 2,

12, 14, 15 and 22 are in the third factor; 18, 19, 20 and 21 are in the fourth factor and finally

statements 7, 8 and 10 are loaded on the fifth factor.

As a result of the explanatory factor analysis of the Sense-Making Scale, it is observed

that there are 5 factors with an Eigen value of 1 and above. First factor explains sense-making

with 16.142% variance, while second factor explains with 13.732%, the third one with

12.092%, fourth factor with 9.874% and fifth factor with 9.416. Five factors explain sense-

making cumulatively with 61.257% variance.

As a result of the principal component analysis, 22 items explained the scale with 5

factors and 61.257% variance. The nomenclature of the factors is made by taking into account

the Sense-Making Theory and scale items. In this context; considering that the scale can also

be used in international researches, the English equivalents of the factors are named as; the

first factor is causality, the second factor is signs, the third factor is inconsistency, the fourth

factor is contradiction and the fifth factor is surprises. Cronbach’s Alpha values obtained as a

result of reliability analyzes of the subscales of each of the five factors were as follows; 0.824

for the causality subscale; 0.859 for the signs subscale; 0.659 for the contradiction subscale;

0.823 for the inconsistency subscale and 0.603 for the surprises subscale.

3.4.4. Sense-Making Mean Differences Between Groups According to ANOVA

and t-test analysis

In order to compare mean differences of groups for sense-making, since test of

homogeneity of variances is not significant (p>.05) Tukey test is implemented. According to

ANOVA analysis there is significant sense-making differences between groups of countries.

Malaysian academics’ sense-making level is -0.14819 unit less than Indians’ sense-making

level. Moreover; Malaysians’ sense-making level is -0.15577 unit less than Turkish

academics’ sense-making level. On the contrary, there is no significant difference between

Malaysians’ sense-making level and Romanians’ sense-making level.


1841 1841 1841

Table 9. Mean Differences of Groups for Sense-Making

Dependent Variable Country Countries Mean Difference SE p

Sense-Making Malaysia

India -.14819 .04550 .007

Turkey -.15577 .04478 .003

Romania -.08341 .04946 .332

On the other hand, according to ANOVA analysis there is not any significant sense-

making differences between groups of ages, work experience and monthly income levels of

participants. Regarding to t-test analysis, variances are equal (p>.05). Hence, there is not any

significant sense-making differences between women and men groups. Furthermore, there is

not any significant sense-making differences between single and married groups according to

t-test analysis.

4. Discussion

Although there are many studies in the literature on the Sense-Making Theory, the

lack of a study on the Sense-Making Scale indicates an important gap that needs to be filled in

the literature. The present study attempted to translate and adapt the Sense-Making Scale

developed in Turkey to use in English for cross-cultural researches. Indian, Malaysian,

Romanian and Turkish cultures might be relatively different. Hence, it is difficult to

accomplish conceptual equivalence. So, admissibility to potential participants is more

significant. The Sense-Making Scale in the study explains the components by making use of

the Sense-Making Theory. By using these components, research can be done in different

disciplines. Investigations can be made by using the Sense-Making Scale in the field of

organizational behavior, political science, military, economics.

The second issue to discuss is that ANOVA analysis illustrates sense-making

differences between groups of countries. Malaysian academics’ sense-making level is -

0.14819 unit less than Indians’ sense-making level and -0.15577 unit less than Turkish

academics’ sense-making level. However, there is no significant difference between

Malaysians’ sense-making level and Romanians’ sense-making level. Since, investigating the

cultural differences is not this research’s aim, further studies may deal with the cultural

differences according to Hofstede’s Culture Typology. The only important thing that should

be emphasized here regarding to culture is that, sense-making levels may differ from culture

to culture.

4.1. Limitations of the Research

The research has some limitations. In scale development studies, the scales can be

prepared either for the researcher's own culture or a measuring instrument developed in a

foreign culture can be adapted by translating it into the native language of the researcher. In

this context, the first limitation of the research is the application of the research in our own

culture; testing in different cultures is recommended and required. The second limitation is

that the research is conducted on academics. Therefore, the scale developed for the first time

has been applied to a particular participant in the education sector, necessitating its

implementation in different sectors and different participants. However, the reliability and

validity of the scale developed in our own culture should be tested in different cultures.

Third limitation of the research is associated with scaling. Sekaran (1983) emphasized

in a cross-national study the nuances of scaling as important aspects of measurement. Barry

(1969) expresses that a 7-point Likert type is better than a 4-point Likert type scale. However,

scales have been mostly used 5-point Likert type in many fields. Therefore, in this research 5-

point Likert type scale is used so as to be used in further different researches.


1842 1842 1842

Considering the lack of suitable sampling frameworks, Malhotra, Agarwal & Peterson

(1996) claim that probability sampling techniques are rare in cross-cultural researches,

although they are more appropriate. In this context, it is tried to be collected primary data in

this research. Besides, Yu et al. (1993) contended that attitude measures such as Likert scales

are also culturespecific. The last limitation is scale type impacts across countries. Therefore,

greater attention has to be paid to decrease scale type effects across cultural differences. To

overcome this problem, research sample consists of Western and Eastern countries. From

Europe Turkey and Romania are chosen and from Asia India and Malaysia are chosen.

4.2. Current Recommendations for Researchers and Practitioners

The use of the Sense-Making Scale in behavioral sciences can also be useful,

innovative, ground-breaking and influential in economics, political science, medical science

and military. In the context of suggestions to practitioners in further researches; it is thought

that it can be used to investigate the relationship between organizational silence,

organizational revenge, dark leadership, intention to quit, organizational commitment, social

support, organizational identification which may be related to sense-making in the field of

organizational behavior.

It is thought that validity will increase as more intercultural quantitative studies are

conducted. In addition, the development of local expressions, signs and concepts in various

countries and cultures will contribute to the Sense-Making Scale. Response equivalence,

especially in developing countries; issues such as status and other psychological issues are

important for cross-cultural data collection. Regarding this matter, Sekaran (1983) argues that

response equivalence can be achieved by applying uniform data collection procedures in all

cultures. Not much time should pass between periods when data is collected from different

countries. This will increase the comparability of data from different cultures within a given

time frame. The data in this research have been collected between April 2019 and October

2019.

5. Conclusion

The main evidence of this research to the existing literature of organizational behavior

and communication is to contribute an original Sense-Making Scale. Another contribution is

that; interpretation of action, facts, sypmtoms, diagnosis and events as a sign may allow

reducing uncertainties for the prediction of possible adverse incidents such as errors,

accidents, chaos and crises. The third contribution of the research is to provide the use of the

scale in other disciplines and to pave the way for the development of different sense-making

scales. The fact that research is being conducted in many disciplines related to sense-making

will increase the number and type of scales with the contribution of this research. Findings

illustrate that reliability of the scale and factor structure is similar. Translation and adaptation

is acceptable, therefore English version of the Sense-Making Scale is recommended to be

used in different cultures.

Supplementary material

Anlamlandırma Ölçeği (Original Turkish version of the Sense-Making Scale) article

can be found at http://busbed.bingol.edu.tr/tr/download/article-file/689705

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank all participating academics and bilingual translators for

their cooperation.

http://busbed.bingol.edu.tr/tr/download/article-file/689705


1843 1843 1843

References

Abbas, A., Zhou, Y., Deng, S., & Zhang, P. (2018). Text analytics to support sense-making in

social media: A language-action perspective. MIS Quarterly, 42(2), 1-38.

Acquadro, C., Conway, K., Hareendran, A., et al. (2008). Literature review of methods to

translate health-related quality of life questionnaires for use in multinational clinical

trials. Value Health, 11(3), 509–521.

Anthoine, E., Moret, L., Regnault, A., Sébille, V., Hardouin, J. B. (2014). Sample size used to

validate a scale: A review of publications on newly-developed patient reported

outcomes measures. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 176(12), 1-10.

Arafat, S. M. (2016). Psychometric validation of the Bangla version of the patient-doctor

relationship questionnaire. Psychiatry Journal, 1-4.

Arafat, S. Y., Chowdhury, H. R., Qusar, M. S., & Hafez, M. A. (2016). Cross cultural

adaptation & psychometric validation of research instruments: A methodological

review. Journal of Behavioral Health, 5(3), 129-136.

Barry, H. (1969). Cross-cultural research with matched pairs of societies. Journal of Social

Psychology, 79(1), 25-33.

Beaton, D. E., Bombardier, C., Guillemin, F. & Ferraz, M. B. (2002) Recommendations for

the cross-cultural adaptation of health status measures. Available at:

http://www.dash.iwh.on.ca/assets/images/pdfs/xculture2002.pdf

Beaton, D. E., Bombardier, C., Guillemin, F., & Ferraz, M. B. (2000). Guidelines for the

process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine, 25(24), 3186-3191.

Bhalla, G., & Lin, L. (1987), Cross-cultural marketing research: a discussion of equivalence

issues and measurement strategies. Psychology and Marketing, 4(4), 275-285.

Bonomi, A. E., Cella, D. F., Hahn, E. A., et al. (1996). Multilingual translation of the

Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) quality of life measurement

system. Qual Life Research, 5(3), 309–320.

Brislin R.W. (1970) Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-cultural

Psychology, 1(3), 185–216.

Caminiti, C., Diodati, F., Filiberti, S., Marcomini, B., Annunziata, M. A., Ollari, M., et al.

(2010). Cross-cultural adaptation and patients’ judgments of a Question Prompt List

for Italian-speaking cancer patients. BMC Health Services Research, 10(16), 1-8.

Cantarero, K., Van Tilburg, W. A., Kuźma, B., Gąsiorowska, A., & Wojciszke, B. (2019).

Some People Probably Need to Make More Sense: An Exploratory Study on

Individual Differences and the Need for Sense-Making. Polish Psychological

Bulletin, 50(2), 114-118.

Carr, S., Gilbride, N., & James, C. (2017). School principals: Their adult ego development

stage, their sense-making capabilities and how others experience them.

SchoolLeadership & Management,1-19.

Cerulo, K. A. (2018). Scents and sensibility: olfaction, sense-making, and meaning

attribution. American Sociological Review, 83(2), 361-389.

Chen, H. Y., & Boore, J. R. (2009). Translation and back‐ translation in qualitative nursing

research: methodological review. Journal of clinical nursing, 19(1‐ 2), 234-239.

Comrey, A., & Lee, H. (1992). A First Course in Factor Analysis (2nd edn.) Lawrence

Earlbaum Associates Publishers: Hillsdale, New Jersey.

Cooper, D. J., Ezzamel, M., & Robson, K. (2019). The Multiplicity of Performance

Management Systems: Heterogeneity in Multinational Corporations and Management

Sense‐ Making. Contemporary Accounting Research, 36(1), 451-485.

Cruz, F. A. D., Padilla, G. V. & Agustin, E. O. (2000). Adapting a measure of acculturation

for cross-cultural research. Journal of Transcultural Nursing, 11, 191–198.

http://www.dash.iwh.on.ca/assets/images/pdfs/xculture2002.pdf


1844 1844 1844

Da Mota Falcao, D., Ciconelli, R. M., & Ferraz, M. B. (2003). Translation and cultural

adaptation of quality of life questionnaires: an evaluation of methodology. J

Rheumatol, 30(2), 379–385.

Devellis, R. F. (2012). Scale development theory and applications (Third Edition), London:

SAGE Publications, Inc.

Dougherty, D. S., & Drumheller, K. (2006). Sensemaking and emotions in organizations:

Accounting for emotions in a rational(ized) context. Communication Studies, 57(2),

215-238.

Dyer, R. (2017). Cultural sense-making integration into risk mitigation strategies towards

megaproject success. International journal of project management, 35(7), 1338-1349.

Emhan, A., Mete, M., & Emhan, A. (2012). Kamu ve özel sektör çalışanlarında işkoliklik ve

obsesyon arasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesi. Dicle Tıp Dergisi, 39(1), 75-79.

Epstein, J., Osborne, R. H., Elsworth, G. R., Beaton, D. E., & Guillemin, F. (2015). Cross-

cultural adaptation of the Health Education Impact Questionnaire: experimental study

showed expert committee, not back-translation, added value. Journal of clinical

epidemiology, 68(4), 360-369.

Epstein, J., Santo, R. M., & Guillemin, F. (2015). A review of guidelines for cross-cultural

adaptation of questionnaires could not bring out a consensus. Journal of clinical

epidemiology, 68(4), 435-441.

Esposito, N. (2001). From meaning to meaning: the influence of translation techniques on

non-English focus group research. Qualitative Health research, 11(4), 568–579.

Fidell, L. S., & Tabachnick, B. G. (2014). Using multivariate statistics (New International

Edition ed.). Pearson: California.

Foldy, E., Goldman, G. L. & Ospina, S. (2008). Sensegiving and the role of cognitive shifts in

the work of leadership, The Leadership Quarterly, 19(5), 514-529.

Goncalves, R. S., Cabri, J., Pinheiro, J. P., Ferreira, P. L., & Gil, J. (2010). Cross-cultural

adaptation and validation of the Portuguese version of the intermittent and constant

osteoarthritis pain (ICOAP) measure for the knee. Osteoarthritis Cartilage, 18, 1058-

1061.

Gross, M. K. (2010). Sense-making in theory and practice: a metatheoretical foundation and

application for health information seeking. MSc Thesis, University of Illinois at

Urbana, Illinois, 1-49.

Guillemin, F., Bombardier, C., & Beaton, D. (1993). Cross-cultural adaptation of health-

related quality of life measures: literature review and proposed guidelines. Journal of

clinical epidemiology 46(12), 1417-1432.

Hagell, P., Per-Johan, H., Meads, D. M., Nyberg, L., & McKenna, S. P. (2010). Effects of

Method of Translation of Patient-Reported Health Outcome Questionnaires: A

Randomized Study of the Translation of the Rheumatoid Arthritis Quality of Life

(RAQoL) Instrument for Sweden. International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and

Outcomes Research (ISPOR) 13(4), 424–430

Hahn, K. T., Emigh, P. J., Lenz, M., & Gire, E. (2017). Student sense-making on homework

in a sophomore mechanics course. PERC Proceedings, 26-27.

Haverly, C., Calabrese B., A., Schwarz, C. V., & Braaten, M. (2020). Making Space: How

Novice Teachers Create Opportunities for Equitable Sense-Making in Elementary

Science. Journal of Teacher Education, 71(1), 63-79.

Henneberg, S. C., Naudé, P., & Mouzas, S. (2010). Sense-making and management in

business networks—Some observations, considerations, and a research agenda.

Industrial Marketing Management, 39(3), 355-360.


1845 1845 1845

Hermann, M. G., & Dayton, B. W. (2008). Transboundary Crises through the Eyes of

Policymakers: Sense Making and Crisis Management. ‘Surviving Future Disasters’

Conference Sponsored by the Stephenson Disaster Management Institute at Louisiana

State University, New York, USA.

http://www.tdk.gov.tr 27.04.2019.

Hughes, N. D., Locock, L., Simkin, S., Stewart, A., Ferrey, A. E., Gunnell, D., ... & Hawton,

K. (2017). Making sense of an unknown terrain: how parents understand self-harm in

young people. Qualitative health research, 27(2), 215-225.

Ito, K., & Inohara, T. (2015). A model of sense-making process for adapting new

organizational settings; Based on case study of executive leaders in work

transitions. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 172, 142-149.

Jakobsen, M., Worm, V., & Li, X. (2018). Making Sense of Context in International

Business: Some Methodological Reflections. Asia Pacific Management Review, 23(4),

251-257.

Karagöz, Y. (2016). SPSS ve AMOS 23 uygulamalı istatistiksel analizler. Ankara: Nobel

Yayıncılık.

Keiichiro, H. (2001). Translation and ‘true language’. Publishing Research Quarterly, 17(1),

53–54.

Kharchenkova, S. (2018). The market metaphors: Making sense of the emerging market for

contemporary art in China. Poetics, 71, 71-82.

Lammers, C. J., & Hickson, D. J. (1979). Are Organizations Culture-bound? In

Organizations Alike and Unlike. (ed. C. J. Lammers and D. J. Hickson). London:

Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd.

Laurent, A. (1980). Matrix Organizations and Latin Cultures: A Note on the Use of

Comparative Research. International Studies of Management and Organization, 10(4),

101-114.

Leite, P., Rangé, B., Kukar-Kiney, M., Ridgway, N., Monroe, K., Ribas J. R., et al. (2013).

Cross-cultural adaptation, validation and reliability of the Brazilian version of the

Richmond Compulsive Buying Scale. Brazilian Journal of Psychiatry, 35(1), 38-43.

MacCallum, R. C., Widaman, K. F., Zhang, S., & Hong, S. (1999). Sample size in factor

analysis. Psychological methods, 4(1), 84-99.

Maitlis, S., & Christianson, M. (2014). Sensemaking in organizations: Taking stock and

moving forward. The academy of management annuals, 8(1), 57-125.

Malhotra, N. K., Agarwal, J., Peterson, M. (1996). Methodological issues in cross-cultural

marketing research. International Marketing Review, 13(5), 7-43.

Maneesriwongul, W. & Dixon, J. K. (2004) Instrument translation process: a method review.

Journal of Advanced Nursing, 48(2), 175–185.

Mattsson, L. G., Corsaro, D., Ramos, C. (2015). Sense-making in business markets–the

interplay between cognition, action and outcomes. Industrial Marketing Management,

48, 4-11.

Mokkink, L. B., Terwee, C. B., Patrick, D. L., Alonso J., Stratford P. W., Knol D. L., et al.

(2010). The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy,

terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-

reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol, 63(7), 737-745.

Munet-Vilar’o, F. & Egan, M. (1990). Reliability issues of the family environment scale for

cross-cultural research. Nursing Research, 39(4), 244–247.

Müller, S., Kohlmann, T., Wilke, T. (2015). Validation of the adherence barriers

questionnaire – An instrument for identifying potential risk factors associated with

medication-related non-adherence. BMC Health Serv Res, 15, 1-12.

http://www.tdk.gov.tr/


1846 1846 1846

Nasif, E. G., Al-Daeaj, H., Ebrahimi, B., & Thibodeaux, M. S. (1991). Methodological

problems in cross-cultural research: An updated review. MIR: Management

International Review, 31(1), 79-91.

Nath, R. (1968). A Methodological Review of Cross-Cultural Management Review.

International Social Science Journal, 20, 35-62.

Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric Theory (3rd ed.). New York:

McGraw-Hill, Inc..

Ola, B. A., & Igbokwe, D. O. (2011). Factorial validation and reliability analysis of the Brain

Fag Syndrome Scale. African Health Sciences, 11(3), 334-40.

Ortiz-Gutiérrez, S., & Cruz-Avelar, A. (2018). Translation and Cross-Cultural Adaptation of

Health Assessment Tools. Actas dermo-sifiliograficas, 109(3), 202-206.

Örün, Ö., Orhan, D., Dönmez, P., & Kurt, A. A. (2015). Öğretmen adaylarının bireysel

yenilikçilik profilleri ve teknoloji tutum düzeyleri arasındaki ilişkinin

incelenmesi. Trakya Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 5(1), 65-76.

Pakenham, K. I. (2007). Making sense of multiple sclerosis. Rehabilitation Psychology, 52(4),

380–389. https://doi.org/10.1037/0090-5550.52.4.380

Parameswaran, R., & Yaprak, A. (1987). A cross-national comparison of consumer research

measures. Journal of International Business Studies, 18(1), 35-49.

Parsian, N., & Dunning, A. M. (2009). Developing and validating a questionnaire to measure

spirituality: A psychometric process. Global Journal of Health Science, 1(1), 1-11.

Paula, H. R., Haddad, A., Weiss, M. A., Dini, G. M., & Ferreira, L. M. (2014). Translation,

cultural adaptation, and validation of the American Skindex-29 quality of life index.

An Bras Dermatol, 89(4), 600-607.

Perneger, T. V., Leplege, A, Etter, J. F. (1999). Cross-cultural adaptation of a psychometric

instrument: two methods compared. J Clin Epidemiol, 52(11), 1037–1046.

Riva, S., Gorini, A., Cutica, I., Mazzocco, K., & Pravettoni, G. (2015). Translation, cross-

cultural adaptation, and reliability, of the Italian version of the Passive Risk Taking

(PRT) scale. Judgment and Decision Making, 10(6), 597-604.

Santos, J. J., Costa, T. A., Guilherme, J. H., Silva, W. C., Abentroth, L. R., Krebs, J. A., et al.

(2015). Adaptation and cross-cultural validation of the Brazilian version of the

Warwick-Edinburgh mental well-being scale. Revista da Associação Médica

Brasileira, 61(3), 209-214.

Saris-Baglama, R. N., Dewey, C. J., Chisholm, G. B., et al. (2004). SF Health Outcomes™

Scoring Software User’s Guide. Lincoln: Quality-Metric, Inc..

Schiavio, A., & De Jaegher, H. (2017). Participatory sense-making in joint musical practice.

In The Routledge companion to embodied music interaction (pp. 31-39). Routledge.

Sekaran, U. (1983). Methodological and Theoretical Issues and Advancements in Cross-

Cultural Research. Journal of International Business Studies, 14, 61-73.

Smerek, R. E. (2009). Sensemaking and Sensegiving: Leadership Processes of New College

Presidents. Doctor of Philosophy in The University of Michigan.

Sousa, V. D., & Rojjanasrirat, W. (2011). Translation, adaptation and validation of

instruments or scales for use in cross‐ cultural health care research: a clear and user‐friendly guideline. Journal of evaluation in clinical practice, 17(2), 268-274.

Sousa, V. D., Zauszniewski, J. A., Mendes, I. A. C. & Zanetti, M. L. (2005). Cross-cultural

equivalence and psychometric properties of the Portuguese version of the depressive

cognition scale. Journal of Nursing Measurement, 13(2), 87–99.

Stieglitz, S., Bunker, D., Mirbabaie, M., & Ehnis, C. (2017). Sense‐ making in social media

during extreme events. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 26(1), 4-15.

Tillmann, K., & Goddard, A. (2008). Strategic management accounting and sense-making in a

multinational company. Management accounting research,19(1), 80-102.

https://doi.org/10.1037/0090-5550.52.4.380


1847 1847 1847

Trousselard, M., Steiler, D., Raphel, C., Cian, C., Duymedjian, R., Claverie, D., et al. (2010).

Validation of a French version of the Freiburg Mindfulness Inventory - Short version:

Relationships between mindfulness and stress in an adult population. BioPsychoSocial

Medicine, 4(1), 1-11.

Tuğsal, T. (2015). Finansal Krizler ve Anlamlandırma Teorisi: 2008 Krizine Retrospektif Bir

Yaklaşım. Siyaset, ekonomi ve yönetim araştırmaları dergisi, 2(2), 111-124.

Tuğsal, T. (2016). İş Yaşamında Duyguları Anlamlandırmanın Örgütlere ve Çalışanlara

Faydaları (Örgüt Yönetiminde Duygular, ed. Ülgen, B.), 69-90, Ankara: Nobel

Yayıncılık.

Tuğsal, T. (2018). İş-Yaşam Dengesi, Sosyal Destek ve Sosyo-Demografik Faktörlerin

Tükenmişlik Üzerindeki Etkisi. İstanbul: Cinius Yayınları.

Tuğsal, T. (2019). Anlamlandırma Teorisi ve Anlamlandırma Ölçeği Geliştirme Çalışması:

Bireylerin Çevrelerindeki Davranışları, Olayları, İşaretleri ve Farklılıkları

Anlamlandırma Durumları. Bingöl Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi,

9(17), 483-492.

Twinn, S. (1998). An analysis of the effectiveness of focus groups as a method of qualitative

data collection with Chinese populations in nursing research. Journal of Advanced

Nursing 28(3), 654–661.

Weick, K. (1988). Enacted sensemaking in crisis situations. Journal of management

studies, 25(4), 305-317.

Weinberg, A., Wiesner, E., & Fukawa-Connelly, T. (2014). Students’ sense-making frames in

mathematics lectures. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 33, 168-179.

Wild, D., Grove, A., Martin, M., et al. (2005). Principles of good practice for the translation

and cultural adaptation Process for Patient-Reported Outcomes (PRO) measures:

report of the ISPOR task force for translation and cultural adaptation. Value Health,

8(2), 94–104.

Williams, B., Onsman, A., & Brown, T. (2010). Exploratory factor analysis: A fivestep guide

for novices. Aust J Paramed, 8, 1-13.

Wu, S. F. (2006). Two stage translation and test the validity and reliability of a foreign

instrument. The Journal of Nursing, 53(1), 65–71.

Xu, S. (2018). Crisis communication within a community: Bonding, coping, and making

sense together. Public Relations Review, 44(1), 84-97.

Yu, J.H., Keown, C.F. & Jacobs, L.W. (1993). Attitude scale methodology: cross-cultural

implications. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 6(2), 45-64.

Yurdugül, H. (2005). Ölçek Geliştirme Çalışmalarında Kapsam Geçerliği için Kapsam

Geçerlik Endekslerinin Kullanılması. XIV. Ulusal Eğitim Bilimleri Kongresi

Pamukkale Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi 28–30 Eylül 2005 Denizli.


1848 1848 1848

Appendix

The Sense-Making Scale (S-MS) English Version

Expression1 When there is any crisis situation around, I think about the causes of events.

Expression2 I question the reasons of the surprises in life.

Expression3 When something bad happens, I think the causes of these bad things.

Expression4 I can notice crisis signals before crisis occurs.

Expression5 I observe and interpret the signs of the deterioration in the environment.

Expression6 I do not consider the causes of events when there is a crisis situation.

Expression7 When there are differences in people's words, I suspect.

Expression8 I suspect when the behaviors of people around me change.

Expression9 When something bad happens, I do not think why the setbacks are caused.

Expression10 When people do not behave as they have to behave, I share this with other people.

Expression11 When an unexpected event occurs, I try to establish a causal relationship between events.

Expression12 When people do not obey the rules, I observe the signals of bad results.

Expression13 I do not investigate the reasons for the deterioration in the environment.

Expression14 When people do not behave in accordance with social values and traditions, I can notice the signs of bad

events.

Expression15 If what people are saying and what they are expected to do is different, I try to understand the causes this

situation.

Expression16 I understand from the talk of the people around me, the signs of what problems may arise in the future.

Expression17 I try to understand the changes in people's behavior.

Expression18 I wonder what signs, surprises, moods are causing the events in the world.

Expression19 I communicate to understand the causes of people's fear and anxieties.

Expression20 I do not strive to establish a causal relationship between events when there is an unexpected event.

Expression21 I communicate with hopeful people who are looking for solutions.

Expression22 When people behave differently than they normally are, I suspect that something bad happens.

TRANSLATION, ADAPTATION, VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY OF …

Documents

Transcript of TRANSLATION, ADAPTATION, VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY OF …